If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"When interviewed on BBC recently [4], Dr Ermakova said that she has now repeated the experiment three times with very similar results each time; the average death rate within three weeks of birth was 51 percent in the group fed GM-soya compared to around 6 percent in the two control groups. In addition, a third of surviving animals in the GM-fed group show markedly reduced body weight and lack normal internal organ development."

See referance link above.

"New research in Canberra Australia demonstrated that a previously harmless protein in bean when transferred to pea caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked reactions to other proteins in the feed [5]. Immunological and biochemical studies carried out for the first time on the transgenic protein revealed that it is processed differently in the alien species, turning the innocuous protein into a strong immunogen. In addition, the transgenic protein promoted immune reactions against multiple other proteins in the diet. In other words, it provoked dangerous food sensitivities. As practically all the transgenic proteins involve gene transfer to an alien species, they will be subject to different processing. All transgenic proteins, therefore, can potentially cause serious immune reactions including allergies [6]. Yet, none of the transgenic proteins commercially approved for food and feed had received the regimen of tests now carried out on the transgenic pea protein. This omission is a most serious public health issue; and warrants an immediate ban on GM food and feed until proper assessment on the immune potential of all the transgenic proteins has been carried out."

Still think we've done enough research, there are many who would disagree.

Still more:

"These latest developments are the most dramatic and revealing in the light of previous scientific and anecdotal evidence that have been suppressed and dismissed, or simply not followed up (see Box). I should mention a series of reports from the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy that have also come to light. They document many changes in the cells of young mice fed GM soya. The acinar (secretory) cells of the pancreas showed a pattern of changes associated with a decrease in the synthesis of the digestive enzyme a -amylase in mice fed GM-soya compared with controls [7, 8]. In liver cells, however, the GM-soya fed mice showed a pattern of changes associated with an increase in metabolic rate compared with controls [9, 10] (“liver of mice fed GM soya works overtime”, SiS 20). Some of those changes could be reversed by a change of diet from GM-soya to non-GM soya; but equally these changes could be induced in adult mice by switching their diet from non-GM to GM-soya [11]. There were also alterations in the Sertoli cells (cells nurturing the developing sperms) and the sperm cells in the testes associated with a decrease in transcription in young mice fed GM-soya compared with those fed non-GM soya [12]."

The good Dr says:

"Commenting on some of the evidence presented here, Dr. Michael Antoniou, Reader in Medical and Molecular Genetics at King's College London, had this to say [18]: “ If the kind of detrimental effects seen in animals fed GM food were observed in a clinical setting, the use of the product would have been halted and further research instigated to determine the cause and find possible solutions. However, what we find repeatedly in the case of GM food is that both governments and industry plough on ahead with the development, endorsement and marketing [of] GM foods despite the warnings of potential ill health from animal feeding studies, as if nothing has happened. This is to the point where governments and industry even seem to ignore the results of their own research! There is clearly a need more than ever before for independent research into the potential ill effects of GM food including most importantly extensive animal and human feeding trials.”"

Still no risks with GMO's there Kieck??? Seems to be some well documented risks....but of course they proably arn't from sources you would approave of......but, none the less, it seems that Montasanto and USDA have gone to great lenghts to shut these researchers up, why is that do you suppose? Here's a hint: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$.

"Ah, c'mon, peggjam! Did you read the first hits from your Google search? Did you notice that they were largely from anti-biotech sources? Do you think they have any bias in their reporting, since they are anti-biotech?"

Oh, and I suppose Montasanto and the USDA arn't equally as biased in their reporting? As are you in your responses?

Then there is the bovine health concerns, exactly what does a cow get to look forward too.....

"Two meta-analyses have been published on rBGH's effects on bovine health.[6][7] Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score but speculated that it may have been attributable to, differences in feeding of treated (underfed) versus untreated (overfed) cows.
A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[8] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presented a threat to animal health and for this reason could not be sold in Canada.[9]"

I was thinking over exactly what contributions

Ph D.s in entomology have added to beekeeping? In every case i considered there seemed a natural effect that caused the solved problem to reappear and render it useless. Fumidal may be the one exception. This seems to be the firmest portion of bee science.

These are the scientists closest to honeybees and they have more long term failure than genuine success. Once they left II, they lost their way and there were plenty of failures there as well. To trust the honeybee to scientists whom are motivated by profit margines, working for the large bio-tech folks seems even less wise.

How is it that most of this culture is bent upon waging war against our problems rather than learning how to abide in a world with problems? Beekeeping, as far as i can see regarding success, is done low key, in tune with the environment and in co-operation with, not in dominance of the insects in question. At the end of the day, the beekeeper with the healthy colonies in the midst of the scourge is the only one worth speaking to, asking advice from and worth emulation.

bwrangler writes:Regardless of technology, best intentions and know-how, most times things don't work out as we expect. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's worse.

tecumseh sezs: sometimes called the law of unintended consequense. in the realm of human interaction it would seen to fall as close to most folks definition of law as almost any of the laws of physics. Rather that use terms like better or worse... I would suggest that the advantages of a technological improvement are most time knows while the problems are quite typically only considered in a very casual fashion. so as BWranger suggest the consequences may be good or bad.. but the process seems bias to the bad.

anyone who might think (or suggest) that the introduction of varroa, trachaeal mites plus several other nasties and who don't recognize that this is largely the product of
free trade (whatever that politically spun term might mean???) certainly have their heads conviently buried in the sand.

30 years ago it was predicted to be a part of the outcome... so in reality these problems do not fall into BWranglers description.

and now back to topic somewhat:
GM 'this or that' is a response to a manufactured (by human activity) problem. the flawed thinking (which I think may be significantly generational) is that some technological fix will cure a technological problem. In the past it seems that most 'technological improvements' simply created their own list of additional problems.